"…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal."

Robert Dahl, leading democratic theorist Dahl, Robert (1998). On Democracy. p. 37. Yale University Press.

-------------

"…for two centuries supporters of the Electoral College have built
their arguments on a series of faulty premises. The Electoral
College is a gross violation of the cherished value of political
equality. At the same time, it does not protect the interests of
small states or racial minorities, nor does it serve as a bastion of
federalism. Instead the Electoral College distorts the
presidential campaign so that candidates ignore most small states – and
many large ones – and pay little attention to minorities."

George C. Edwards III, leading scholar of the U.S. presidencyEdwards, George C. III (21 Sept 2004). "Faulty Premises: The
Flawed Foundation of the Electoral College." Texas A&M
University Distinguished Lecture Series.
http://www.tamu.edu/provost/udls/edwards.html

-------------

"…arguing that our endurance as a democratic republic is tied to the
Electoral College would be tantamount to having claimed in 1915 that
our stability was dependent on continuing to deny women the right to
vote and to have state legislatures select U.S.
Senators."

"The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are
reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other
consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the
Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states
take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their
attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate."

The New York TimesThe New York Times (29 Aug 2004). Editorial/Opinion. "Making Votes Count; Abolish the Electoral College."

-------------

"Every citizen’s vote should count in America, not just the votes of
partisan insiders in the Electoral College. The Electoral College
was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low and
voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly
no longer the case."

"You win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category."

Al Gore, 2004 Democratic National Convention."Gore: Let's make sure this time every vote is counted" (27 July 2004). CNN.com Inside Politics.http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.gore.transcript/

-------------

"I wrote in defense of the Electoral College in 2000, but George
Edwards III, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, has
forced me to reconsider. Upon reconsideration, I think the critics have
the better argument. If the Electoral College didn't exist, no
one would invent it. It violates the central principle of our election
system -- that every vote should count equally and that victory should
go to the person with the most votes. And it produces no obvious
compensating benefit."

"All-or-nothing systems disenfranchise millions of voters and prompt
campaigns to focus solely on closely contested states. This year, the
candidates are ignoring two-thirds of the states because all of the
electoral votes in each appear safely in one or the other's camp. So
certain an outcome discourages turnout in those states as well.
Though the system dates back to the 19th century under laws adopted by
each state, it doesn't have to be that way. Certainly, the U.S.
Constitution doesn't require it."

"We've said it before, and we'll say it again - the American Electoral
College system sucks. All told, the Bush and Kerry campaigns have
spent well over $200 million by now, sending tens of thousands of
advertising spots to Iowa television stations. We merit this
attention because, simply put, we are special, or at least our state
is…This makes us worthy of the kind of time investment you don't
normally see unless somebody is building a rain forest next door."

"When
a presidential election falls in the same year as a census, the
apportionment of a full decade earlier governs the allocation of
electoral votes. In the election of 2000, for example, the
allocation of electoral votes actually reflected the population
distribution of 1990, a decade earlier… Because of this process, the
apportionment of electoral votes ALWAYS overrepresents some states and
underrepresents others."

George C. Edwards III, leading scholar of the U.S. presidencyEdwards, George C. III (2004). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America. p. 2. Yale University Press

-------------

"The Gallup Poll reported in 2001, ‘There is little question that
the American public would prefer to dismantle the Electoral College
system, and go to a direct popular vote for the presidency. In
Gallup polls that stretch back more than fifty years, a majority of Americans
have continually expressed support for the notion of an official
amendment of the U.S. Constitution that would allow for direct election
of the president.’"

George C. Edwards III, leading scholar of the U.S. PresidencyEdwards, George C. III (2004). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America. p. xvi. Yale University Press.

-------------

"I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election…as the most
dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance
will some day hit."

"The present rule of voting for President…is so great a departure from
the Republican principle of numerical equality…and is so pregnant also
with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the
Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate
and best friends."

"Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?"

James Wilson, author of U.S. Constitution. 30 June 1787.Madison, James (1 April 1987). Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. W.W. Norton & Company.

-------------

"It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority,
distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a
true constitutional crisis…The majority does not rule, and every vote
is not equal — those are reasons enough for scrapping the system."

The New York TimesThe New York Times (29 Aug 2004). Editorial/Opinion. "Making Votes Count; Abolish the Electoral College."

-------------

"The
collision between the electoral vote and the popular vote is no longer
just a historical curiosity. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College
and to count the votes of all Americans in presidential elections...
This is about far more than any one candidate or the outcome of a
particular election. At stake is public confidence in our electoral
system."

Rep. William Delahunt, (D-MA)Delahunt, William (10 Nov 2000). "It's time to ablish the Electoral College." The Boston Globe.

-------------

"I suspect this whole electoral college issue is due for serious debate in the next Congress."

"My view is that we need to change the system. And that means amending
the Constitution. Because we have this winner take all
system...as the campaign progresses, and [as] more states move into an
almost certain Democratic, or almost certain Republican category, the
candidates are driven to go to those states that could go either way."

"From the time I was small, I learned that every vote counted, that we
actually chose the president directly. They build up your patriotism by
saying we can elect whoever we want, and then you find out later it
doesn't work that way. I think it's wrong to tell kids it's one
person, one vote. It's a huge lie."

"In an election featuring voter equality, the number of
potential voters who actually cast a vote matters, because votes are
aggregated across the electorate and all votes count equally. In
the Electoral College, however, it does not matter whether one person
or all eligible persons go to the polls. Because each states has
a predetermined number of electoral votes, the actual vote total in a
state has no relevance to its electoral votes. The state casts
its electoral votes even if only one person actually votes."

George C. Edwards III, leading scholar of the U.S. presidencyEdwards, George C. III (2004). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America. p. 40. Yale University Press.

-------------

"Why is it that the people of Afghanistan can vote directly for the
Afghanistan president, unlike Americans, who cannot vote directly for
the American president? Why is it that Iraqis can vote for their
president, but Americans cannot vote for the American president?
If the Electoral College is so important in America, then shouldn't
Afghanistan have an Electoral College? Shouldn't Iraq have an Electoral
College? The answer is that they don't because it's not relevant."

"The ramifications of the trend toward battleground-only campaigns
shake the foundation of our democracy. As long as the Electoral College
system remains unchanged, the citizens who live in the Red and the Blue
states will never be engaged by either party. The alarming apathy of
our population will only continue to grow."

FairVote research is cited in support of the National Popular Vote plan in Indiana, because "every vote cast for president should be equally important and equally coveted, whether it originates in California, Connecticut or Crawfordsville."

FairVote's Rob Richie writes that the Electoral College deepens political inequality, and explains why the National Popular Vote plan is our best opportunity to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation magazine, highlights FairVote's research in an important piece on the "broad support" growing in the states for the National Popular Vote plan to elect the president.